It appears that a hot topic for the Sweet Home City Council is going to be an effort to get voters to approve a rewrite of the City Charter that would enable city residents to elect their mayor directly.
Sweet Home currently uses the council-manager form of government, in which City Council members, elected by voters, hire a city manager to oversee city operations. They also elect one of their own every two years, following the November general election, to act as mayor until the next City Council is elected and sworn in.
Sweet Home’s mayor acts as chairperson of the council and leads council meetings, enforces rules, and determines the order of business. In Sweet Home’s system, the mayor votes as a councilor. Other responsibilities include signing council actions, making appointments to city commissions and boards, serving as a spokesperson for the community, and representing the city at official functions and in interactions with other government bodies.
Simply put, the mayor is the leader of our City Council – no more, no less.
But there’s a desire for change. All 12 candidates in last fall’s City Council election, including the three who were elected, to some extent backed electing a mayor separately from the council.
The Mayor-Council arrangement is more common in larger cities, such as Portland, where the mayor is often full-time and may even assume city manager-type responsibilities.
This form of government is also more common in the East and the Midwest, and it’s the one employed by both Lebanon and Brownsville, although their mayors are not “strong” mayors. Lebanon’s mayor only votes to break ties. Brownsville’s, when present, votes on all council decisions.
The council-manager form is actually the most common form of city government in the United States. According to the International City/County Management Association, it actually grew from 48% usage in 1996 to 55% 10 years later.
But that’s enough for the civics lesson.
This push to elect the mayor by the people is not a new issue in Sweet Home. It was batted around in the 2016 election, in which the eight City Council candidates offered differing opinions on the issue. The idea went into hibernation for a while as the council got busy with other things, but it has now revived.
Candidates in last November’s election complained about a lack of transparency, accountability and communication from the city – and by extension, the council. These are not new issues, and when perceived discord among council members is factored in, it’s not hard to reach the conclusion that a change in council structure might help.
But will it?
Supporters of the elected mayor form of city government argue that it would give the people more of a voice because the mayor would control more of what is addressed by the council. The mayor already controls the meetings, if not most of what goes on the agenda, so the question would be what “increased control” would entail.
Some proponents of the mayor-council structure maintain that by electing, rather than appointing, a mayor, political leadership is established by the people. A mayor elected by the people would be more accountable, they believe.
Another argument is that a people-elected mayor gives the city a political spokesperson who has a high degree of visibility and more clout on a regional level. They argue that separation of powers provides healthy independence, debate and creative tension.
It would be unlikely that Sweet Home voters would opt for a strong mayor form of government, in which the mayor basically acts as city manager. Despite recent councils’ difficulties in retaining city managers – that’s another issue – having an administrator with management skills often comes better through the hiring process than through a popularity or name-recognition contest, which, unfortunately, is what local elections often become.
Some believe that a mayor elected by the people would help stabilize the city government and provide more transparency than the current arrangement.
Frankly, the success of electing a mayor by the people versus electing one by the council really comes down to who that mayor is, what skills and qualities they possess.
Some argue that it would be preferable for that person to have to convince the general voting population rather than just a majority of six colleagues. If we trust those six to make a wise decision, there shouldn’t be an issue.
Whether an elected mayor would reduce turmoil and increase order in city government is a good question. Turmoil is generally the result of a lot of things, including political posturing and politicking that isn’t always appropriate at this level of government. The City Council is a non-partisan entity. Its members’ role is to serve Sweet Home residents by making policies that will advance the community’s interests, not their own or their political aspirations – which sometimes happens.
Certainly, there are times, such as in the Green Peter debacle, in which the city must take a public stance. And when that time comes, it’s incumbent on the council and its members to agree on a unified front in stating the city’s position on issues that go beyond our borders. An elected mayor might be super at that, but so could one chosen the current way.
The success of local government, as in just about every other realm of life, is dependent on people working together, getting along.
As far as transparency is concerned, the City Council doesn’t need a different council structure to do that. City Council members need to be involved, as has been pointed out many times previously on this page. The current mayor has been very involved, frequently seen at public events and in meetings that she is not obligated to be at. That has not always been the case with either Sweet Home mayors or City Council members, and that helps immensely to improve transparency.
The very nature of this job should be to serve the community: to interact with community members in general, not just the people a councilor feels comfortable with. It should be to behave civilly and stick to the matters at hand, the business of the city and the real challenges it faces. When voters see councilors drawing lines in the sand and posturing, when they don’t see them in public places where others gather, it’s no wonder that they doubt the transparency of city government and the City Council.
A new method of electing a mayor likely won’t change that.